By Tony O’Riley-
Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne, insists his statement that Covid -19 deaths were manipulate to exaggerate the extent of the pandemic was true.
The MP who told anti-vaccination campaigners to “persist” in protesting lockdown and that NHS capacity figures were being “manipulated” to exaggerate the scale of the pandemic has refused to apologise for his remarks.
Sir Desmond Swayne said the comments, made in November to Save Our Rights UK and obtained by Sky News, were “perfectly legitimate at the time” although he said he accepts that the COVID-19 situation has changed entirely with the new variant.
His statement that the situation has changed appeared to be the MP’s apology to those offended by a claim he hasn’t retracted, and still stands by.
“I certainly regret the fuss they’ve caused,” Sir Desmond told Sky’s All Out Politics when asked about his remarks.
Sir Desmond’s position is incredible because because it raises questions of the manipulation he refers to, and how he arrived at that conclusion. There has long been a view by many members of the general public that Covid-19 deaths were manipulated, but the official position of the government was that there had been confusion when those who tested positive for Covid-19 died many months later of some other cause, but was put down as being as a consequence of the virus.
Research
Research conducted by the Eye Of Media.Com last year revealed that a number of Londoners have not taken the lockdown seriously due to the British government’s admission last summer that Covid-19 deaths were exaggerated.
Although the government eventually revised the official numbers and adjusted the way deaths were recorded by restricting Covid -19 death certificates to 28 days after a positive test of the virus, many have lost faith in the legitimacy of the numbers.
The same research we conducted revealed the harmful effects of regular news reporting of Covid-19 deaths on members of the public, but has still not been published. The editorial of this publication and some of its advisers have been internally reviewing and debating the timing of its publication, and if at all it should be published.
The uncertain position has been because of the potential impact of publishing some of the details of the research at a time when the importance of observing the ongoing lockdown and keeping the public safe is crucial. A decision to publish the findings was eventually made a few days ago, but it has still not been authorised for publication.
Some detailed opinions expressed by members of the public had been later presented as questions to other respondents, and led to responses which raised some internal concerns.
The findings of the research have already been revealed to a number of British media editors , in a bid to alert them to some of the serious issues and concerns raised with the way the pandemic has been reported.